Dr Francis:
I see at least one member of my Committee nodding. I will be putting it to my Committee next week that we ought to discuss the idea, and I hope that it will be endorsed and then officially become part of our work. After that, I hope that it will see the light of day and be endorsed by the Government—if not here, then in the other place.

Mr Tyrie:
I am grateful for what appears to be, already, the Joint Committee’s support for the recommendation. It is an innovation from the Treasury Committee—Parliament has not dealt with any appointments in that way before—but I think that it adds something.

Mr Slaughter:
What the hon. Gentleman has said is very persuasive, as is what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis). I think that we would support such action, and that the Government should consider it seriously.

Mr Tyrie:
Well, I have one Front Bench aboard; that leaves another one. I do not see any movement just yet, but if I keep going for a couple more minutes, who knows? I might receive a response.

I think that it is in the interests of the Government to adopt this route, because it would bolster public confidence that the review and the reviewer were truly independent of the Government. My personal view is that five-yearly renewals, informed by a five-yearly review clause, should be satisfactory or at least adequate, but that is certainly the minimum that is required. What the Government have offered so far, which is just some reporting plus a five-yearly review, is clearly not enough. If they do not indicate that they are prepared to move this evening, I will vote against them. However, I hope very much that their lordships are also listening to the debate. They will have an opportunity to improve the new clause in a number of ways, and I hope that those will include the ways that I have suggested.

John McDonnell:
I tabled new clause 9, which, as has been said, was debated in Committee. I congratulate Lawrence McNamara on his work—on the advice that he gave the House overall, and the evidence that he gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He made a simple point. As we have seen tonight, this is an extremely contentious Bill concerning a contentious procedure, and it therefore warrants close monitoring. The best way of enabling that to happen is to establish a database at the earliest opportunity in order to ensure that the necessary information is recorded.

Lawrence McNamara made a fairly straightforward recommendation to the Committee. He suggested a template-form statement specifying the duration of open hearings and closed hearings, the number of witnesses heard in closed proceedings and the nature of those witnesses, the length of a closed judgment, and whether national security was an issue in the proceedings. The information whose collection is requested is not exactly highly controversial. The reason for requiring it is that it would inform the proposed review, and inform the wider media and the general public about the activities that were being undertaken as a result of the Bill. I am perplexed about why the Government did not simply

4 Mar 2013 : Column 773

accept that recommendation. Surely they would want to collect the information as well, in order to monitor their own legislation.

I welcome new clause 5. At least the Government are doing something about reporting. However, the report that they propose would be undertaken after 12 months of operation. I think that people need an ongoing database to which they can refer regularly, and which can be used when necessary to inform debates in the House and among the general public. The database would also feed into the review itself. It would enable a proper discussion to be held about whether the legislation was being implemented effectively, and about the scale of its implementation.

One of the arguments that we have heard tonight is that the CMPs will be used in only a small number of cases—15, according to the impact assessment, but that figure appeared to have been plucked out of the air when the Minister without Portfolio was interrogated further. Given the uncertainty about the import and breadth of the use of the legislation, there is obviously a need for an ongoing database to monitor the position, and that is all that the amendment does. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are unwilling to accept it. I would expect a good Government to want to manage that information anyway.

With regard to the review, I wholeheartedly support the proposal for Joint Committee approval of the appointment. We had a similar discussion about the Bank of England, although without success, but the Treasury Committee was certainly successful with regard to the Office for Budget Responsibility. I suggest that this post is equally important and that, because the legislation is contentious, it is important that the person who reviews it has the full support of the House, and that could be secured by the Committee.

With regard to expiry and renewal, I remind Members that when the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was introduced, we secured an annual debate on renewal. I cannot remember it being argued at the time that that was because the legislation did not have sufficient scrutiny in its early days. I know that it was introduced as emergency legislation, but subsequently there was fairly intense debate about whether it needed to be amended at different stages. The annual renewal was intended to give us an opportunity to see whether it was working effectively and to estimate the consequences for human rights, a critical debate that a number of us have engaged in year in, year out. It did not mean that there were any major amendments as such; it meant that Members of this House, and through them the general public, could satisfy themselves as to whether the legislation was operating in accordance with the original intentions. That is what an expiry and renewal clause would enable us to do. Again, I cannot for the life of me see that as contentious; it is simply another democratic fall-back or long-stop mechanism to ensure that we are fully consulted and that we are satisfied that the legislation has been implemented effectively.

On that basis, I will support the amendments tabled by Opposition Front Benchers and will not press new clause 9 to a Division, but I must express my disappointment that the Government have not gone

4 Mar 2013 : Column 774

very far in accommodating what I think would simply be an exercise in openness and transparency for a particularly contentious piece of legislation.

Dr Huppert:
I wish first to put on the record my thanks to the Minister. In Committee he resisted many of my amendments, which was frustrating, but he did agree to take away my new clauses 1 and 2, which related to reporting and reviewing, and reflect on them. He has been true to his word, and new clauses 5 and 6 are the result. There are a couple of slight differences in the time scales, but, as I indicated in Committee, my aim was to try to achieve regular reporting and review, rather than being fixated on the exact number of months, and clearly reports that happen so quickly that there is not enough time to get information are not necessarily better. I am happy to settle for the annual report and pleased to see it.

I am also happy to see the five-yearly review, but I have a slight issue with it and would be grateful for clarification from the Minister. During a brief exchange earlier in the debate, he talked about the five-yearly approach being appropriate, and I think he said “once a Parliament”. As I read it, the wording of the clause indicates that the review would be done after five years and never again, so there is a difference between the two proposals. I hope that he will reflect on which it is intended to be.

The review might find that everything is working fine, and even those of us who are deeply uncomfortable with the whole concept might find that it does not work in the way we had anticipated, in which case we might not need regular reviews, but there might be things we need to consider, in which case we would like to see five-yearly reviews. I think it is important that each Parliament can reflect and conclude, for example, that this has gradually grown, that there are more and more cases, or fewer and fewer cases, or that something else has changed. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I am pleased that there will be the five-yearly review.

I would certainly support the idea of the independent reviewer being appointed more independently, as I think would my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I do not know whether the Government will be able to find a way to deliver that, but I hope that they will, because I do not think that that would cause any significant harm. I have some slight reservations about the five-yearly period.

New clause 4 is similar to the annual renewal proposal that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) made in Committee and to the one proposed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who was apparently performing vaudeville at some stage in Committee—I am afraid I must have missed it. I am still keen to see some form of regular renewal. The Government are resistant to annual renewal. I will certainly be supporting such a renewal, but if it continues to be a stumbling block, will they consider five-yearly renewal? I had a similar discussion about that on the same terms with the Minister in respect of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. In that case, he and the Home Secretary decided on a five-yearly renewal and perhaps he will make the same incredibly wise decision in this case, as it was clearly a good one.

4 Mar 2013 : Column 775

9.30 pm

We have not yet talked about the other possible venues for review. It is, presumably, open to Parliament to review and debate this legislation at any time; we could repeal some or all of this legislation at any time. The Intelligence and Security Committee has a particular role to play in this regard, and we will discuss it in far greater detail on Thursday, in the next part of this debate. That Committee could carry out an ongoing review and provide the sort of information that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was arguing for in terms of monitoring what is happening with ongoing data. I would be grateful if the Minister examined whether there is a clear role for that Committee here, and I am sure he will have wise words to say about whether such an approach might be taken. It is not as good as a fully open process—one of the great benefits and disbenefits of that Committee is that it operates under conditions of secrecy—but it may provide some of the ongoing reassurance that those of us who remain deeply uncomfortable about much of this would wish to see.

I hope that the Chair of the Joint Committee of Human Rights, whose Committee I also had the pleasure of serving on, would agree that it, too, might have a role to play in keeping some of this under review. I mostly have thanks for the Minister, but we still need this idea of a regular renewal process just in case it turns out that things are going wrong.

Mr Charles Walker:
In addressing the new clauses, the Minister said it was important to maintain confidence in our legal system—not only for us to do so, but for our many thousands of constituents to do so. That is why it is so important constantly to review the impact of closed material proceedings. The Minister gave a figure of 15 or more cases a year going through this process, which is not an inconsequential number. Since entering this place, I have seen changes to our legal system that have worried me, such as the introduction of double jeopardy, and the fact that we now seem happy to imprison people for 20 years and when we discover that they did not commit the crime for which they were imprisoned we do not think that they should have much compensation, if any. We are now going down the route of secret courts, so reviewing the impact and consequences of secret proceedings is enormously important, because many thousands of my constituents and many millions of people across the length and breadth of this country are made very nervous by this change, coming on top of other changes. What happens in other EU countries that have proceedings similar to closed material proceedings? What happens in other liberal western democracies?

I conclude my comments by saying that over the weekend a number of Conservative colleagues whom I respect and admire immensely were talking about the UK leaving the European Court of Human Rights. I would support that, but I smile when I find that on the Monday we are talking about bringing in secret courts, as the two things do not make comfortable bedfellows. Thank you very much for allowing me a brief moment on my feet, Mr Speaker.

James Brokenshire:
We have had an interesting debate on these new clauses. I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) described the Bill as

4 Mar 2013 : Column 776

complex, controversial and important and asked whether I would accept his analysis. I agree that it is complex, inasmuch as we are dealing with the need for closed material proceedings and the nature of sensitive material. It is controversial and it is clearly very important, as it relates to the assurances we are seeking to give to overseas partners and, obviously, to the nature of justice itself, which was very much a feature of the preceding debate. In the context of his description, I certainly recognise the need for an assurance to this House and to the public about how the powers and provisions in the Bill will be used in practice, as well as on the points that have been made about that.

In essence, that question was at the heart of our debate in Committee about the utility, effectiveness and proportionality of the use of closed material proceedings and the frequency of their use, which, in many ways, touches on the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). We have given an indication of how many cases are expected per year, but clearly the reporting mechanism we envisage is intended to provide a sense of how many times the provisions will be used in that way.

I shall focus on a number of points raised during the debate and characterise some of the themes that emerged. The first is the question of whether there should be a formal renewal process. The Opposition have sought to interpose an annual renewal through new clause 4, but even if we accept the principle, that is simply too short a time period for the reasons given by many right hon. and hon. Members. The House would not be able to assess the effectiveness and operation of the provisions, given that we are talking about cases that are likely to run for an extended period of time.

When we considered the timing and effectiveness of a renewal provision, going back as far as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, we looked back at what happened under control orders, which is perhaps the closest parallel to an annual renewal debate on which we can draw. I recall the annual debates on control orders and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will agree that some of them were sub-optimal, to say the least. In many respects, they became—[Interruption.] They were not, perhaps, the kind of fully formed debate that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is seeking through new clause 4, because, in essence, they became a cursory discussion at the time for the annual renewal of the provision. The debates were often short, were not necessarily well attended and did not necessarily apply the level of scrutiny that he is looking for. It is difficult to see, if he is talking about a renewal 12 months after Royal Assent, what information would be available to inform consideration properly of whether the legislation was effective. If we put aside the detail of the principle, there is a clear issue with the timing.

Mr Slaughter:
I do not think that the Minister’s saying that the poor quality of debate in this House is a good reason for not having annual renewal is his best point. Will he deal with a point on which I do not think he agrees with me? New provisions have been introduced to the Bill, in Committee, where they at least received some debate, and today. Amendment 46, in particular, seems to allow material that is irrelevant to the proceedings to trigger a CMP, which is a massive change that has

4 Mar 2013 : Column 777

not been debated at all because we have not had time to do so. Is that not a reason for allowing renewal after a short time?

James Brokenshire:
I hesitate to tread on amendments in the previous group, but ultimately it is for this House to determine the appropriate way to examine legislation. With other legislation, it might simply be the process of review through Government activity or Select Committee activity, but in certain cases, because of the sensitivity, import or nature of the legislation, there might be some form of additional statutory provision. We have certainly touched on areas of legislation where that has had some application. For example, some sort of mechanism or review for reporting back to the House how the legislation has been used applied to previous terrorism legislation and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. Because of the sensitive nature of the issues in this case, the Government have accepted that the normal scenario whereby Select Committees or other bodies are part of the general rolling assessment of legislation is not sufficient for this particular Bill. That is why we have sought to introduce the new clauses this evening.

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD):
Now that the Minister is talking about engaging Parliament and now that his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio is back in his place, is it not a good moment to address the idea that Parliament should be engaged by ensuring that the reviewer who can look into all the secret aspects is appointed with the agreement of a Committee of both Houses of Parliament—namely, the Joint Committee on Human Rights?

James Brokenshire:
I would say that the provisions we have sought to introduce on the appointment of a reviewer are similar to, and in line with, other legislation such as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act, whereby the Secretary of State appoints the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The individual holding that office may well be the appropriate person to conduct this type of review or it may be someone else so that David Anderson or whoever is the holder of the office at that time is not overburdened, which could dilute the effectiveness of the independent reviewer’s analysis of the legislation. I hope that the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights would accept that the evidence and information provided by the independent reviewer has been instructive and relevant to that Committee’s consideration of the Bill.

I highlight the fact that the independent reviewer has provided quite an important perspective, looking at terrorism legislation as he does, which has added value not just to the Joint Committee’s review but to the debates we have had here. I note that David Anderson has been prayed in aid this afternoon and also in debates in the other place. We certainly recognise the value that an independent reviewer can have. I know from my discussions with other Ministers in other parts of Europe and elsewhere that the role of our independent reviewer is recognised for the importance and added value it brings in the analysis of legislation that touches on some sensitive issues.

4 Mar 2013 : Column 778

9.45 pm

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for his contribution, both this evening and in Committee, highlighting the need for information to be available and the need for a mechanism for Parliament to assess these provisions. Equally, there could well be a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in examining the effectiveness of the legislation. Clearly, it will be for the ISC to examine that, but I note, for example, that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has decided that it wishes to take evidence on the operation of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 after its first year. The Bill in no way prevents such scrutiny. It sets out the information and the mechanism that Parliament will be afforded to give assurance and to assess how the legislation is being applied.

Mr Charles Walker:
I am sure I am pre-empting matters and that my hon. Friend was going to come on to this later in his speech. I asked what happens in other western European countries when it comes to reviewing closed court proceedings. Can he tell me what other European countries do on such matters?

James Brokenshire:
It is difficult to answer my hon. Friend’s question. Parallels are difficult to draw in this respect. I can think of one European jurisdiction that is seeking to examine the appointment of an independent reviewer of its own terrorism legislation. We are unusual in having an individual who does such work. People are reflecting on the input from David Anderson, the current reviewer, and his predecessor, Lord Carlile, shining a light and having access to sensitive materials better to inform the debate on sensitive issues relating to terrorist legislation.

I am not seeking to avoid my hon. Friend’s question. It is genuinely difficult to draw parallels with the type of court processes and the review structure that we have in this country, and to say that another country deals with the issue by having an x year review or some sort of renewal system or independent reviewer. It is hard to make such an analysis, because countries and their systems are so different.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke about the provision of information and the need for a database. On closed proceedings and closed judgments, there is a database which is held and managed by the Home Office and will be updated three times a year in relation to closed judgments, to ensure that special advocates are able to look at summaries of legal principles in particularly sensitive judgments. Those will be added on a less routine basis to reduce the risk of the summary being linked to a particular case, because of the sensitivity of some of the details. It is intended that summaries of all future closed judgments will be entered into the database to inform debates and discussions and the work of the special advocates.

Part of the debate has been on the principle of whether there should be an annual sunset or renewal—whatever language we choose—or whether the system should be on a five-year basis, which I know that others have suggested as an alternative, although that option is not before the House tonight. The choice that the House has is whether to accept the Government’s new clauses on the provision of information and the review,

4 Mar 2013 : Column 779

which I hope it will, recognising that this is an addition that seeks to improve the Bill and the scrutiny and analysis that it provides.

Ultimately, if we were to introduce some form of renewal, we would have to face up to the message that that gives to some of our external partners on the control principle and the sharing of intelligence, given that one of the principles behind the changes being introduced is to give assurance to our external partners, recognising the point that David Anderson and others have made that, in essence, our relationship with a number of external partners has been affected by some cases. If we were to provide an annual renewal, it would materially impact on that. Equally, if we were to provide a further formal five-year renewal in the Bill, our judgment is that that would not provide the assurance to our external partners that is anticipated for our intelligence relationships.

Mr Tyrie:
I am a little concerned that I am listening to a suggestion that the legislation is somehow for the benefit of our closest allies, the United States. It should be pointed out that the United States does not rewrite its law to take account of the fact that we send some of our intelligence material to it. Indeed, it is often argued that it is a good deal more leaky than we are. A former head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre recently remarked that he supposed that British intelligence must be very unhappy because it is often exasperated, quite reasonably, with its American friends, who are far more leak prone than it is. Nor has it sought to change its system of law to take account of our requests. Is that not one of my hon. Friend’s weakest arguments?

James Brokenshire:
My hon. Friend says that it is a weak argument, but I disagree. An important part of the Bill is to ensure that justice is achieved in those cases where otherwise evidence would be excluded. Also, through the Norwich Pharmacal provisions, assurance is given that the control principle will be adhered to. That important provision needs to be considered as part of this segment of the Bill and when considering five-year renewal or otherwise. In essence, once we get towards the end of the five-year period, the assurance will not be there. People will be considering what the situation would be, and the issues around the control principle and the assurance that we seek to give to external partners are relevant factors for consideration in this context.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge on the ISC, under the Bill the ISC’s function will be to oversee the expenditure, administration, policy and operations of the security and intelligence agencies and other Government activities in relation to intelligence or security matters. In the course of that work, it may come across information relevant to this issue and it would be open to the committee to report on those matters to Parliament or to the Prime Minister if it found evidence that the Government may have been abusing the CMP. The ISC has the ability to examine some of these issues if that helps for the scrutiny that is applied in respect of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith highlighted the conditions for a declaration to be made. They can be met on material that a party other than the applicant is required to disclose. Amendment 46 makes it clear that

4 Mar 2013 : Column 780

the two conditions for a declaration to be made can be met and based on such material. I do not know whether that is helpful to him in the context of the points that he made.

Ultimately, the House will need to determine whether the Government’s new clauses are sufficient. We believe that they are; they allow for a reviewer to look at the legislation in five years’ time. Following the report that the reviewer provides, it is open to the House to re-legislate if it considers that change is needed. Equally, we judge that the legislation on the provision of information gives assurance within an appropriate period on how the Bill will be used.

Others may take a contrary view, but we judge that the new clauses are appropriate. We recommend them to the House, because it is important for us to have the transparency and that ability to consider. That is precisely what the new clauses will give us.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Review of sections 6 to 11

‘(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of sections 6 to 11 (the “reviewer”).

(2) The reviewer must carry out a review of the operation of sections 6 to 11 in respect of the period of five years beginning with the day on which section 6 comes into force.

(3) The review must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period to which the review relates.

(4) As soon as reasonably practicable after completing a review under this section, the reviewer must send to the Secretary of State a report on its outcome.

(5) On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.

(6) Before laying a copy of a report before Parliament under subsection (5), the Secretary of State may, after consulting the reviewer, exclude from the copy any part of the report that would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be damaging to the interests of national security if it were included in the copy laid before Parliament.

(7) The Secretary of State may pay to the reviewer—

(a) expenses incurred by the reviewer in carrying out functions under this section, and

(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.’. —(James Brokenshire.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Expiry and renewal

‘(1) Sections 6 to 12 of this Act expire at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide that sections 6 to 12 of this Act are not to expire at the time when they would otherwise expire under subsection (1) or in accordance with an order under this subsection but are to continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding one year.

(3) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.—(Mr Slaughter.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

4 Mar 2013 : Column 781

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided:

Ayes 231, Noes 296.

Division No. 171]

[

9.56 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob

Alexander, rh Mr Douglas

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Anderson, Mr David

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Bain, Mr William

Baker, Steve

Balls, rh Ed

Banks, Gordon

Barron, rh Mr Kevin

Bayley, Hugh

Begg, Dame Anne

Benn, rh Hilary

Berger, Luciana

Betts, Mr Clive

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Blunkett, rh Mr David

Brady, Mr Graham

Brennan, Kevin

Brooke, Annette

Brown, Lyn

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Brown, Mr Russell

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Burnham, rh Andy

Byrne, rh Mr Liam

Campbell, Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Caton, Martin

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Chope, Mr Christopher

Clark, Katy

Clarke, rh Mr Tom

Clwyd, rh Ann

Coffey, Ann

Cooper, rh Yvette

Corbyn, Jeremy

Creasy, Stella

Crockart, Mike

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Cunningham, Sir Tony

Curran, Margaret

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

David, Wayne

Davidson, Mr Ian

Davies, Geraint

De Piero, Gloria

Dobson, rh Frank

Docherty, Thomas

Donohoe, Mr Brian H.

Doran, Mr Frank

Doughty, Stephen

Doyle, Gemma

Dromey, Jack

Dugher, Michael

Durkan, Mark

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Edwards, Jonathan

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Engel, Natascha

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Farron, Tim

Field, rh Mr Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flello, Robert

Flint, rh Caroline

Fovargue, Yvonne

Francis, Dr Hywel

Gapes, Mike

Gardiner, Barry

Gilmore, Sheila

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mrs Mary

Godsiff, Mr Roger

Goodman, Helen

Greatrex, Tom

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Gwynne, Andrew

Hain, rh Mr Peter

Hamilton, Mr David

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Harris, Mr Tom

Havard, Mr Dai

Hemming, John

Hendrick, Mark

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hillier, Meg

Hilling, Julie

Hodge, rh Margaret

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hoey, Kate

Hood, Mr Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Hosie, Stewart

Hughes, rh Simon

Hunt, Tristram

Huppert, Dr Julian

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jackson, Glenda

James, Mrs Siân C.

Jamieson, Cathy

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Graham

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Jowell, rh Dame Tessa

Joyce, Eric

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Khan, rh Sadiq

Lammy, rh Mr David

Lavery, Ian

Lazarowicz, Mark

Leslie, Chris

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn

Long, Naomi

Love, Mr Andrew

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Mahmood, Mr Khalid

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marsden, Mr Gordon

McCarthy, Kerry

McClymont, Gregg

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGovern, Alison

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne

McKenzie, Mr Iain

Meacher, rh Mr Michael

Meale, Sir Alan

Mearns, Ian

Miliband, rh David

Miller, Andrew

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morrice, Graeme

(Livingston)

Morris, Grahame M.

(Easington)

Mudie, Mr George

Mulholland, Greg

Munn, Meg

Murray, Ian

Nandy, Lisa

Nash, Pamela

Onwurah, Chi

Owen, Albert

Pearce, Teresa

Perkins, Toby

Phillipson, Bridget

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Qureshi, Yasmin

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick

Reed, Mr Jamie

Reed, Steve

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Riordan, Mrs Linda

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Robertson, Angus

Rotheram, Steve

Roy, Mr Frank

Roy, Lindsay

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan

Sarwar, Anas

Sawford, Andy

Seabeck, Alison

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Shuker, Gavin

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Mr Andy

Smith, rh Mr Andrew

Smith, Angela

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Teather, Sarah

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Tyrie, Mr Andrew

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, Valerie

Walker, Mr Charles

Walley, Joan

Watson, Mr Tom

Watts, Mr Dave

Weir, Mr Mike

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Hywel

Williamson, Chris

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Wood, Mike

Wright, David

Wright, Mr Iain

Tellers for the Ayes:

Phil Wilson

and

Jonathan Ashworth

NOES

Afriyie, Adam

Aldous, Peter

Alexander, rh Danny

Amess, Mr David

Andrew, Stuart

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Norman

Baldry, Sir Tony

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Barker, rh Gregory

Baron, Mr John

Barwell, Gavin

Beith, rh Sir Alan

Bellingham, Mr Henry

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Bingham, Andrew

Binley, Mr Brian

Birtwistle, Gordon

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Mr Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Bottomley, Sir Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brake, rh Tom

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, James

Browne, Mr Jeremy

Buckland, Mr Robert

Burley, Mr Aidan

Burns, rh Mr Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burstow, rh Paul

Burt, Alistair

Burt, Lorely

Byles, Dan

Cable, rh Vince

Cairns, Alun

Campbell, Mr Gregory

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies

Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair

Carmichael, Neil

Chishti, Rehman

Clappison, Mr James

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Clegg, rh Mr Nick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, Stephen

Crouch, Tracey

Davey, rh Mr Edward

Davies, David T. C.

(Monmouth)

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Philip

de Bois, Nick

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen

Dorries, Nadine

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Mr Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evans, Jonathan

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Field, Mark

Foster, rh Mr Don

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Francois, rh Mr Mark

Freer, Mike

Fullbrook, Lorraine

Gale, Sir Roger

Garnier, Sir Edward

Garnier, Mark

Gauke, Mr David

George, Andrew

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gilbert, Stephen

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goldsmith, Zac

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Halfon, Robert

Hames, Duncan

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, Matthew

Hands, Greg

Harper, Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Hart, Simon

Harvey, Sir Nick

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hayes, Mr John

Heald, Oliver

Heath, Mr David

Heaton-Harris, Chris

Henderson, Gordon

Hendry, Charles

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoban, Mr Mark

Hollingbery, George

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Horwood, Martin

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Hunter, Mark

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

James, Margot

Javid, Sajid

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Johnson, Gareth

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kelly, Chris

Kennedy, rh Mr Charles

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Mr Greg

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Lamb, Norman

Lancaster, Mark

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew

Laws, rh Mr David

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Jessica

Lee, Dr Phillip

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, Dr Julian

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lidington, rh Mr David

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lloyd, Stephen

Lord, Jonathan

Luff, Peter

Lumley, Karen

Main, Mrs Anne

Maude, rh Mr Francis

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McCrea, Dr William

McIntosh, Miss Anne

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McVey, Esther

Menzies, Mark

Mercer, Patrick

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Maria

Mills, Nigel

Milton, Anne

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Moore, rh Michael

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, James

Mosley, Stephen

Mowat, David

Munt, Tessa

Murray, Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Newmark, Mr Brooks

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

Nuttall, Mr David

O'Brien, Mr Stephen

Ollerenshaw, Eric

Opperman, Guy

Osborne, rh Mr George

Ottaway, Richard

Paice, rh Sir James

Paisley, Ian

Parish, Neil

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, Mike

Penrose, John

Perry, Claire

Phillips, Stephen

Pickles, rh Mr Eric

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark

Pugh, John

Randall, rh Mr John

Redwood, rh Mr John

Rees-Mogg, Jacob

Reid, Mr Alan

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm

Robathan, rh Mr Andrew

Robertson, rh Hugh

Rogerson, Dan

Rudd, Amber

Ruffley, Mr David

Russell, Sir Bob

Rutley, David

Sandys, Laura

Scott, Mr Lee

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Simmonds, Mark

Simpson, Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Miss Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Sir Robert

Soames, rh Nicholas

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mr Mark

Stanley, rh Sir John

Stephenson, Andrew

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Mr Graham

Stunell, rh Andrew

Sturdy, Julian

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swinson, Jo

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter

Thurso, John

Timpson, Mr Edward

Tomlinson, Justin

Tredinnick, David

Truss, Elizabeth

Turner, Mr Andrew

Uppal, Paul

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Weatherley, Mike

Webb, Steve

Wharton, James

Wheeler, Heather

Whittaker, Craig

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Mr Mark

Williams, Roger

Williams, Stephen

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wright, Jeremy

Wright, Simon

Yeo, Mr Tim

Young, rh Sir George

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr David Evennett

and

Joseph Johnson

Question accordingly negatived.

4 Mar 2013 : Column 782

4 Mar 2013 : Column 783

4 Mar 2013 : Column 784

10.13 pm

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

4 Mar 2013 : Column 785

Clause 7

Review and revocation of declaration under section 6

Amendment made: 48, page 7, line 3, at end insert—

‘(7) In relation to proceedings before the Court of Session—

(a) the reference in subsection (3) to the completion of the pre-trial disclosure exercise is a reference to the fixing of a hearing to determine the merits of the proceedings, and

(b) the reference in subsection (6)(b) to when the pre-trial disclosure exercise is to be considered to have been completed is a reference to what constitutes a hearing to determine the merits of the proceedings.’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 8

Determination by court of applications in section 6 proceedings

Amendment proposed: 38, page 7, line 18, at end add

‘and that damage outweighs the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice’.—(Mr Slaughter.)

‘(c) proceedings on, or in relations to, an application for a revocation under section 7, and

(d) proceedings on, or in relation to, a decision of the court to make a revocation under that section of its own motion.’.

Amendment 51, page 9, line 13, leave out ‘section 12’ and insert—

‘sections (Reports on use of closed material procedure) to 12’. —(

James Brokenshire.)

Clause 12

Sections 6 to 11: interpretation

Amendments made: 52, page 9, line 17, leave out ‘11’ and insert—

‘(Review of sections 6 to 11)’.

Amendment 53, page 9, line 41, leave out ‘11’ and insert—

‘(Review of sections 6 to 11)’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 16

Review of certification

Amendment made: 54, page 14, line 9, leave out ‘and 11’ and insert—

‘, 11 and (Review of sections 6 to 11)’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Bill, as amended, to be further considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Markets in Financial Instruments

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15938/11, a draft Regulation on markets in financial instruments and amending regulations [EMIR] on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories, and No. 15939/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Directive on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC; notes the importance to the UK economy of stable and well functioning financial

4 Mar 2013 : Column 790

markets; and welcomes efforts to improve transparency, while supporting competition and user choice, as part of the global post-crisis regulatory reform agenda.

—(Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Electoral Commission

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Gareth John Halliwell to be an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 13 March 2013 for the period ending on 12 March 2017. —(Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Mr Speaker:
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 to 11 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Libraries

That the draft Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (PRA-regulated Activities) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Threshold Conditions) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

That the draft Financial Services Act 2012 (Mutual Societies) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.—(Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Ordered,

That the motion in the name of Secretary Vince Cable relating to Financial Assistance to Industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Greg Hands.)

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

Motion made,

That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 15 January 2013, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill presented to both Houses on 22 November 2012 (Cm 8499), and that the Committee should report by 31 October 2013.

That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords;

European Scrutiny

That Sandra Osborne be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mrs Linda Riordan be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Petition

Extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington

10.27 pm

Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab):
I am pleased to be able to present this petition on behalf of my constituents, asking the House of Commons to urge the Government to examine the feasibility of bringing the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington and bringing the Leamside line back into use. The petitioners and I believe that doing so would attract businesses and customers to the area, as well as helping my constituents to travel to work in other parts of the region. This petition is accompanied by one along the same lines that has the signatures of 348 readers of the Washington Star newspaper.

The petition states:

To the House of Commons:

The Petition of residents of Washington and Sunderland West constituency and the surrounding areas,

Declares that there are inadequate public transport links for residents in Washington to access the rest of the Tyne and Wear area, increasing reliance on personal transport and reducing employment and economic opportunities for the town and its residents.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to seriously explore the feasibility of extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to the town of Washington utilising the old Leamside railway line.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001160]

4 Mar 2013 : Column 792

Health Professionals: Regulation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

10.29 pm

Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con):
In the wake of the Francis report and the news that 14 more trusts are under investigation due to unnecessary deaths, it is clear that our current system of health care regulation has failed. More importantly, it means that the NHS has failed its patients, and that the Care Quality Commission is clearly not fit for purpose. I have seen documents that suggest that 25 hospitals with abnormally high mortality rates were highlighted to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) in March 2010. Seven of the 14 trusts now under investigation were on that list. He referred them at the time to the CQC, which confirmed it had:

“no current concerns about these trusts which would require intervention.”

Some of them, however, have had significantly high mortality rates for more than a decade. Sir David Nicholson tried to paint Mid Staffordshire as a singular case. Minutes of meetings imply that the concerns of patients’ families were dismissed as simply lobbying. Perhaps more worryingly, it appears there has been not just incompetence, but a culture of cover-up in the NHS.

Let me give just one example. Professor Sir Brian Jarman, a world-respected authority on mortality data, has raised with me allegations of trusts fixing their mortality figures. In essence, trusts relabelled deaths as palliative care after the definition was widened in 2007. Hospitals’ standard mortality rates would fall, as palliative care deaths were considered normal and not down to poor care. Experts suggest that a figure of approximately 4% of deaths should be classified in this way, yet at the Medway NHS Foundation Trust, one of the trusts now under investigation, it jumped to 37%, which suggests that in one month hospitals had been transformed into hospices.

The paper reclassification improved hospitals’ mortality score by approximately a third, yet nothing had actually changed on the wards. In other words, they were fiddling the figures and, as a result, were masking poor care. The same tactic was used by Mid Staffordshire to obscure what was really going on, and the number of deaths classified even now as palliative care across England is still higher than expected, and higher than in comparable international countries. That needs to be looked at urgently. Until that happens, we cannot be confident that the 14 trusts currently under investigation—seven of which, we were told in 2010, were not a concern—are all that we need to worry about.

Perhaps more distressing is that management consultants profited from masking the real causes of those deaths. The CHKS advisory group visited hospitals to advise not on how to reduce mortality and save lives, but on how to make the figures look more normal.

James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con):
My hon. Friend is a respected member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am sure he knows from his work on the Committee that target-driven culture, in whatever Government Department, can often lead to anomalies

4 Mar 2013 : Column 793

and inefficiencies. Is it not extremely worrying that the way the targets were framed in the case he highlights led not only to inefficiencies, but to actual loss of life? Would he suggest that this is not just a matter for the individual hospitals he has named, but for the entire target-driven process, which needs to be re-examined by the Government and the Minister?

Stephen Barclay:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The deaths, in part, came from a target culture. The targets were not set with that intention, but that was the consequence.

We have to ask about the people responsible for fiddling the figures to meet those targets. Between 2007 and 2009, the chairman of the advisory board at CHKS was Niall Dickson—not a doctor, but a journalist—and he is now the chief executive of the General Medical Council. Has the Minister reviewed the role of CHKS in advising hospitals on how to reinterpret death rates, and is someone involved in such an organisation the right person to be regulating doctors today?

Not surprisingly, following the Francis report, there has been a flurry of activity to explain what new systems will be put in place, but as an ex-regulator I know that such changes, while introduced in good faith, are likely to be flawed. If we are to ensure patient safety, we need a culture change. The ultimate regulator is a well-informed patient. The ultimate inspectors are whistleblowers on the ground. We need quality transparent data for patients to be able to make real, informed choices about where to be treated and how to hold the NHS to account. It is remarkable that a report last week found that two thirds of doctors and nurses at some hospitals would not recommend their own hospital to their family and friends. What does that say about the regulation of those hospitals? It is common knowledge among NHS insiders that certain doctors are good and certain doctors and surgeons should be avoided. Why should patients be kept in the dark about that sort of information?

Those involved in projects such as the Dr Foster unit at Imperial are world leaders in providing health information, and the decision to publish heart surgery outcomes was welcome, but the status quo does not go far enough. Data are available privately showing outcomes broken down by hospital, department, ward and even individual doctor. I urge the Minister to start to make those data public. They have never been published. Those in the profession know what they contain; it is time we trusted the public with the truth. Of course, they need to be presented in a meaningful way, but there is a duty to explain them, not hide them. We have seen with heart surgery what a positive impact such transparency can have.

I ask the Minister to reflect on the following point. We now have the safest heart surgery in Europe, partly because we have data transparency, but that is down to consultant anaesthetist Steve Bolsin, who exposed high death rates for child heart surgery. That information, which was published in Private Eye, led to a public inquiry. The publication of those figures has clearly driven up standards, yet the impetus for change was not the Department of Health or the Royal College of Surgeons, but a whistleblower who was prepared to speak up—incidentally, is it not revealing that he no longer works for the NHS?

4 Mar 2013 : Column 794

Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con):
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful and informative speech. Does he agree that what matters is not only ensuring that data are transparent for patient groups, but the quality of assessments, where we have seen a failure? Hospitals with obviously high mortality rates were deemed acceptable by assessors even before the fiddling of figures. Is that not partly because people not qualified to know the ins and outs of what goes on in, say, the operating theatre are going round, ticking the boxes and saying, “That’s all fine”, when in fact it is not? With the expert eye of another experienced clinician in the same field doing the assessment, very different outcomes would arise. It is because they have that knowledge and expertise that organisations such as the Royal College of Surgeons have been commissioned to carry out reviews.

Stephen Barclay:
My hon. Friend is right. A lot of the people at the Care Quality Commission doing the clinical assessments are not clinically trained, and, even when they have a clinical qualification, it often does not relate to what they are looking at—for example, we might have doctors looking at baby units. Her point applies to coding as well: as seen in media reports last week, the people reinterpreting the coding are often not clinically trained.

Whistleblowers have a unique vantage point on what is happening with patient safety, but for too long we have hypocritically lauded their contribution publicly while silencing or gagging them in practice. The Commission for Health Improvement found problems at Mid Staffordshire back in 2002, a peer review of critically ill children by the strategic health authority criticised Mid Staffordshire in 2003 and 2006, and whistleblowers at Mid Staffordshire raised concerns as far back as 2005, yet the warning signs were not acted on. Many members of staff simply chose to close ranks. There appeared to be a bullying culture which discouraged people from coming forward, and those who did were threatened. One nurse at Mid Staffordshire summed up the position by saying:

“The fear factor kept me from speaking out”.

This is not an isolated case. It is almost beyond parody, but the Care Quality Commission, the body to which whistleblowers might turn, itself used gagging clauses. It disgracefully smeared Kay Sheldon, a member of its board. When she had the courage to speak out, it was suggested that she had mental health problems. That is the culture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) pointed out during Prime Minister’s Question Time last Wednesday, three reports commissioned to mark the 60th anniversary of the NHS in 2008 which identified problems appear to have been buried. One of those reports, to Ara Darzi, referred to a “shame and blame” culture, and said that fear was pervading the NHS and at least certain elements of the Department of Health. Why were those reports buried?

Figures I obtained after a two-year battle in Whitehall showed that £15 million of taxpayers’ money had been spent over three years to gag whistleblowers. Why are we spending £5 million a year to silence those who are brave enough to speak out? We hide behind the guidance which says that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects them, but, as we have seen in the Gary Walker case, trust lawyers threaten and intimidate whistleblowers

4 Mar 2013 : Column 795

although they know about that protection. I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent letter, but I must point out that gagging clauses have no place in the NHS today.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP):
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important matter to the House’s attention. Does he agree that, at a time when mortality levels in the NHS are the highest they have been for years, the restoration of public confidence in the service is imperative? What steps does he think the Government should take to ensure that it is restored, and people no longer feel that it is dangerous to go to hospitals in our constituencies?

Stephen Barclay:
The answer is to tell the truth. Constituents come to my surgery—I am sure that that the hon. Gentleman has the same experience—and talk about going to visit a husband of many years and finding him naked from the waist down, or taking soup in to feed patients. They know the issues. Let us be candid. There are many wonderful things about our NHS, but let us not hide the failures and concerns. Let us not have a culture of cover-ups that silences the whistleblowers.

An official NHS circular from 1998 states:

“It is not contrary to the Department of Health’s policy for confidentiality clauses to be contained in severance agreements.”

Will the Minister ensure that that is scrapped? The letter from the Secretary of State does not force trusts to take such action, and I think it is high time that we made the position on gagging clauses clear and beyond doubt.

Regulatory failure across hospitals nationally shows the need for greater data transparency, so that we can see the true patient outcomes and protect staff who speak out. That will secure a higher-quality and safer NHS for patients across the board. We need to move the health service out of its cover-up culture and into the light, and to ensure that individuals are held to account. The Prime Minister has said that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that applies on our hospital wards. It is best for us to have well-informed patients and staff who are able to voice their concerns. It is clear from what happened at Mid Staffordshire, at the 14 hospitals that are under investigation, and at the 25 that were drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State that concerns about those hospitals—along with the many other concerns that are being expressed around the country—have not been acted on so far. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that he will now speed up such action.

10.44 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on securing the debate. He made a number of serious allegations, but he was absolutely right to say that it is completely unacceptable to manipulate any patient information deliberately in order to falsify reports of a trust’s performance, and there will be serious consequences for any part of the NHS that is found to be doing so. He was right to say that if we are to have an open and accountable NHS in which patients and the public know how hospitals are doing, the hospitals must be open and honest about their performance.

4 Mar 2013 : Column 796

My hon. Friend was also right to say that we want the NHS to have the lowest mortality rates in Europe. Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, is currently leading an investigation into hospitals with higher mortality rates to understand why they are higher and whether they have all the support they need to improve. To pick up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) raised in her intervention, that will involve senior clinicians with background expertise going into those hospitals to ensure that proper scrutiny is brought to bear.

Charlotte Leslie:
Will the Minister give way?

Dr Poulter:
I will, very briefly, although my hon. Friend did not notify me previously that she intended to intervene.

Charlotte Leslie:
I thank the Minister for his courtesy and apologise for not notifying him in advance. Does he have any indication of where our current mortality data lie in relation to comparable countries and, if not, will he speak with Sir Brian Jarman of the Dr Foster website, because I believe that he has some rather depressing news on that front and it is probably time to start speaking the truth about that as well?

Dr Poulter:
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. We have made it clear, both in opposition and in government, and indeed in the health care mandate, that we do not find it acceptable that Britain, compared with some other European countries, is not doing well when it comes to survival rates for a number of diseases, including some types of cancer and some respiratory diseases. We all know that the NHS must achieve more in that regard. It is not necessarily an isolated issue that applies to one particular trust. That is why we made it a priority in the NHS mandate set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health at the end of last year, but the priority should be clinical outcomes, and a key priority is improving mortality for a number of diseases, particularly those that are attributable to patients with long-term conditions.

I thought that it might be worth discussing in more detail a few of the points my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire raised. He talked in particular about the Francis report. For everybody who cares about the NHS and works in it, as I still do, the day the Francis report was published was a humbling one. There was failure at every level: a systemic failure, a failure of regulation, a failure of front-line professionalism, a failure of management and a failure of the trust board. There are systemic problems with the NHS that we need to focus on and address. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will outline when we give our further response to the Francis report later this month.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire was also right to highlight that there has been too much covering up in the past and not enough transparency. If we are to put right some of the systemic failings highlighted in the Francis report, we need to be grown up enough to acknowledge that sometimes the NHS does not come up to standard and the care that we would expect to be delivered to patients is not always good enough. If we care about our NHS,

4 Mar 2013 : Column 797

and if we want an NHS we can continue to be proud of and that will continue to be the envy of the world, we must acknowledge when things go wrong and ensure that we face up to the problems in an open and transparent way. We must ensure, as many hospitals with a more transparent culture do, that good audit and proper incident reporting are in place for when things go wrong. We must ensure that, rather than having recriminations and closed doors, bad things are learned from, and that where things have gone wrong and patients have not been treated properly, hospitals and the whole the NHS make more active efforts to deal with problems and failures of care.

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con):
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. It might be helpful, Mr Speaker, if you would give us guidance on whether pre-notification is still required. What the Minister says is all well and good but why is it, after so many people died in such an unacceptable way, that nobody seems to have carried the can or taken responsibility?

Mr Speaker:
Order. I thought, in the circumstances, that I would let the debate flow, but for clarification I ought to say that there is a requirement that a Member who wishes to make a speech in someone else’s Adjournment debate secures agreement in advance, but there is no such requirement—this point is widely misunderstood—in respect of an intervention. It is purely for the Minister to decide whether to take an intervention. No impropriety has been committed by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie); her virtue is unassailed.

Dr Poulter:
Indeed, and thank you, Mr Speaker. I will, of course, do my best to take as many interventions as possible, but my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will be aware that I have been generous so far and that the time allotted to Adjournment debates means that it is difficult to give as full an answer as possible to interventions. For that reason, it is useful to have some notice that an hon. Member intends to intervene.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the point clearly, as did Robert Francis in his report, that it was not for the Francis report to highlight individuals or blame them for what happened; the report was about ensuring that there was a clear acknowledgement that there had been systemic failure, which I talked about earlier. It was a failure of professionalism on the front line; a failure of the trust’s board; a failure of regulation and the regulators; and a failure of management at the trust. When systemic failure occurs, it is right that we put in place systemic solutions, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do later this month.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire made the key point that a real culture change was required, and that that is about having transparency and openness in the NHS. He is right to highlight those points. If we want transparency and openness, we need to look at some of the steps that have already been taken. We know that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which in theory gives protection

4 Mar 2013 : Column 798

to whistleblowers and people who want to speak out, has not been effective. Legislative approaches have not been enough to ensure that people feel free to speak out. Legislation has so far not been effective in creating that culture of openness and transparency that we all believe is necessary.

However, we have seen two things in the past six months that will make a real difference, the first of which is the contractual duty of candour, which will be introduced in the NHS for hospital trusts. It will mean that there is support for openness and transparency as part of the NHS contract. The second is the strengthening of the NHS constitution, which brings direct support to the cause of whistleblowers. Those things will be further strengthened in our further response later in the month to what happened at Mid Staffordshire.

Stephen Barclay:
I very much welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will now be changes for whistleblowers. I repeatedly raised my concerns with Sir David Nicholson in the Public Accounts Committee, so why did he continually tell me that there was no problem with the guidance or the legislation, and that adequate protection was in place for whistleblowers? The Minister is now accepting the need for change, but why did the chief executives tell me that there was no problem?

Dr Poulter:
I say to my hon. Friend that the Department of Health has, like everyone who works for it, made it clear that gagging clauses are not and have never been acceptable in the NHS. There is a distinction to make between confidentiality clauses, which might be part of any financial settlement with anyone who works in either the commercial sector or the public sector, and a gagging clause. It is the duty of any front-line professional, according to and as part of their registration with the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council, to speak out when there are issues of concern. That is a part of good professionalism. That is what being a good professional is about. It is about someone saying that they recognise that there has been unacceptably poor care in a hospital or a care setting and that they have a duty, because they are a registered doctor or nurse, to speak out to highlight where problems have occurred. The point is that at Mid Staffordshire there was clearly a failure of that professionalism not only on the front line but at every level. Gagging clauses have never been considered by the Department of Health, certainly under the current Government, to be an acceptable part of the NHS. That was made very clear in a recent letter written by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to NHS hospitals and chief executives.

Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con):
On the subject of gagging clauses, did the settlement that formed part of the severance payment of the former chief executive of Mid Staffs include a gagging clause? If the Minister cannot tell me that today, will he put it in writing?

Dr Poulter:
I shall endeavour to write to my hon. Friend to clarify as I do not have the information immediately to hand. That does not detract from the fact, however, that a gagging clause in any form is unacceptable to this Government, should be unacceptable to everybody in this House and is unacceptable to every doctor and nurse who works in the NHS. We will continue to do all we can through the contractual

4 Mar 2013 : Column 799

duty of candour and through strengthening the NHS constitution to make it easier for NHS staff to feel that they can speak out openly and feel supported in doing so, so that we have an open and transparent NHS of which we can be proud.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire also raised a very important point about open and transparent data on surgical outcomes. It was Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the current NHS medical director, who put together the purple book of cardiac surgery, which has made a huge difference through greater transparency of outcomes in that specialty. That was in reply to the findings of the Bristol heart surgery inquiry, and it is regrettable that we have not seen similar advances in openness and sharing of data in other specialities in the NHS. That is not necessarily because the data do not exist, because they often do. In some specialties, such as urogynaecology, national databases are being put together to consider the long-term data on certain operations, which, to some extent, will give data on individual surgeons.

In the NHS, we often have a plethora of data and a lot of audit information that is collected at a local level, and we must ensure that those data are used in a better way in future. A lot of work can be done to add transparency and to share audit data in different trusts so that they are openly comparable to build a national picture of certain types of care and how we can improve

4 Mar 2013 : Column 800

patient care. That was a good point that was well made, and I know that Sir Bruce Keogh is continuing and will continue to develop that work in his role on the NHS Commissioning Board. I had a very encouraging meeting recently with a number of senior surgeons who recognise the importance of such work in their specialties. I am sure that the NHS will continue to develop it at a greater pace in the future, not least because of what we have heard from the Mid Staffs inquiry.

In conclusion, throughout the debate the point has been made that we have legislation in place to protect whistleblowers, but it has not been effective—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) says from a sedentary position that it does not work. He is absolutely right—it has not been effective and that is why we are considering the Mid Staffs inquiry and the issues of culture that have existed and that have failed and let down patients. We will have a robust response to those failings to put right what has gone wrong and to ensure as best we can that another Mid Staffs will never happen again in the NHS. I am sure that we will all support what our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says in his further response later this month.